Ex Parte HAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

12943398 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/943,398 11/10/2010
126542 7590 07/03/2018
Riverside Law LLP/Universal Display Corporation
Glenhardie Corporate, Center Glenhardie Two
1285 Drummers Lane, Suite 202
Wayne, PA 19087
Lin HAN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
206157-0009-00-US.60483 l 3600
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
dockets@riversidelaw.com
dcoccia@riversidelaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN HAN,
PRASHANT MANDLIK, and SIGURD WAGNER
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4, 9-13, 15-23, and 25-34. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a field-effect transistor comprising
one or more insulating layers made from a hybrid silica-silicone material, also
1 The real party in interest is said to be The Trustees of Princeton University.
Appeal Brief dated March 13, 2017 ("App. Br."), at 3.
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398
known in the art as an organosilicate glass (OSG). Spec. i-f 14. The Appellants
disclose that the hybrid material is preferably formed by plasma-enhanced
chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) from a gas mixture comprising a volatile
silicone precursor and an oxidant. Spec. i-f 14. The Appellants disclose that "[t]he
volatile silicone precursor may be any material that is capable of forming a layer of
[OSG] when deposited by chemical vapor deposition." Spec. i-f 58. The
Appellants, however, disclose that "[t]he siloxanes are a class of compounds
particularly suitable for use as the precursor material." Spec. i-f 58. According to
the Appellants, "[ w ]hen deposited by PECVD in the presence of an oxidant, these
siloxane compounds are able to form both silicone polymers and silicone dioxide,
and under appropriate conditions a hybrid of the two, an organosilicate glass, is
deposited." Spec. ,-r 58.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
Claim 1. An electronic device comprising a field-effect transistor,
the field effect transistor comprising:
a semiconductor active layer comprising a semiconductor
material;
a source electrode and a drain electrode;
a back channel passivation layer disposed over the
semiconductor active layer and between the source electrode and the
drain electrode, the back channel passivation layer comprising a
hybrid silica-silicone material wherein the hybrid silica-silicone
material consists essentially of silicon dioxide and a siloxane
polymer;
a gate electrode; and
an insulating material disposed between the gate electrode and
the semiconductor active layer, the insulating material consisting
essentially of a hybrid silica-silicone material that is made by plasma-
2
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398
enhanced chemical vapor deposition from a gas mixture comprising
one or more volatile silicone precursors and oxygen, wherein the
hybrid silica-silicone material consists essentially of silicon dioxide
and a siloxane polymer with the proviso that no other materials are
present other than silicon, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and optionally
nitrogen,
wherein the electronic device optionally comprises an
intervening SiNx subbing layer between a substrate and the field-
effect transistor.
App. Br. 22.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1--4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shih et al. 2 in view of Lakshmanan et al. 3 and Yamazaki et al.; 4
(2) claims 1--4, 9, 10, and 29-31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shih in view of Lakshmanan, Yamazaki, and either Fujii et al. 5
or Kato· 6
'
(3) claims 11-13, 15-19, 21, 25-28, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shih in view of Lakshmanan and Yamazaki, and further in view
of Irving et al.; 7
(4) claims 11-13, 15-19, 21, 25-28, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shih in view of Lakshmanan, Yamazaki, Irving and either
Fujii or Kato;
2 US 2008/0018850 Al, published January 24, 2008 ("Shih").
3 US 2006/0276054 Al, published December 7, 2006 ("Lakshmanan").
4 US 2005/0090029 Al, published April 28, 2005 ("Yamazaki").
5 US 2008/0309581 Al, published December 18, 2008 ("Fujii").
6 US 2008/0144374 Al, published June 19, 2008 ("Kato").
7 US 2008/0299771 Al, published December 4, 2008 ("Irving").
3
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398
(5) claims 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shih in view of Lakshmanan and Irving, and further in view of Wagner et al.; 8 and
(6) claims 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shih in view ofLakshmanan, Yamazaki, Irving, Wagner, and either Fujii or Kato.
We affirm the rejections on appeal for the reasons provided in the Non-Final
Office Action dated July 25, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer
dated May 17, 2017 ("Ans."). We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's findings of
fact or conclusions of law in the rejections on appeal. Rather, the Appellants argue
that the claimed invention "is predicated on unexpected results." App. Br. 9. In
particular, the Appellants argue:
As described for example in paragraph [0120] of the as-published
specification and corresponding Figures 11 and 12, Appellants
demonstrated experimentally the unexpected and significantly
improved characteristics of the claimed devices (commensurate with
TFT [thin film transistor] 3) as compared to conventional TFTs. As
described, dimensions and measurement conditions were identical
except for the gate dielectric and back channel layers, the specific
compositions of which are not taught by Shih, as conceded by the
Examiner. Output (fos-VDs) characteristics plotted in FIG. 11 show
that TFT 3 produces about 4 times the current of the conventional
TFT. The DC transfer (log1o[fos-Vas]) characteristics of FIG. 12
show that OFF and gate leakage currents of about 1 pA are similar for
both TFTs, a higher ON current and ON/OFF ratio for TFT 3, and a
subthreshold slope of 270 mV/dec for TFT 3 vs. 500 mV/dec for the
conventional TFT. The least-squares fits of FIG. 4 to the saturated
(VDs=lOV) and linear regimes (VDs=0.1 V) ofTFT 3 yield
µn, sat=2.0 cm2/V· sand µn,lin=2.1 cm2/V· s, and VT=2.0 and 2.5 V,
respectively.
8 US 2008/0237181 Al, published October 2, 2008 ("Wagner").
4
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398
App. Br. 9.
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Attorney
argument or conclusory statements in the Specification do not suffice. In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To the extent that some of the
characteristics of TFT 3 are improved compared to a conventional TFT, the
Appellants have not directed us to any evidence demonstrating that the improved
characteristics would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973) (in order for a showing of
"unexpected results" to be probative evidence of non-obviousness, the applicant
must establish that the difference between the results obtained through the claimed
invention and those of the prior art would not have been expected by one skilled in
the art at the time of invention).
The Appellants have also failed to show that the conventional TFT tested is
the closest prior art. See De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705 ("an applicant relying on
comparative tests to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must compare his
claimed invention to the closest prior art"). According to the Appellants, the
conventional TFT was manufactured with SiNx as the gate dielectric. Spec. i-f 120.
However, the Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that Shih
discloses a hybrid silica-silicone gate dielectric material. Non-Final 4 (citing Shih
i-f 18). The Examiner also finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that
Lakshmanan discloses a gate dielectric material that reads on the claimed dielectric
material. Non-Final 5---6. In view of those findings, the Appellants do not explain,
in any detail, why Shih or Lakshmanan, rather than the conventional TFT tested, is
5
Appeal2017-010291
Application 12/943,398
not the closest prior art. 9 See Non-Final 23 (finding that Shih and Lakshmanan,
which both teach a hybrid silica-silicone for use as a gate dielectric in a TFT, are
the closest prior art); Ans. 29 (explaining why Appellants have failed to compare
the claimed invention to the closest prior art).
On balance, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. 10 Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections on
appeal are sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a).
AFFIRMED
9 We recognize that the combination of Shih and Lakshmanan is not the closest
prior art. See App. Br. 10 (citing In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
and Jn re Chapman, 357 F.2d418, 422(CCPA1966)).
10 We note that the Appellants also have failed to show that TFT 3 is
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Paragraph 111 of the
Appellants' Specification, which describes the fabrication of TFT 3, merely
discloses depositing an "OSG layer" and laying down a second "OSG layer."
Thus, there is no evidence on this record that the OSG layers in TFT 3 consist
essentially of silicon dioxide and a siloxane polymer, as recited in independent
claims 1 and 11.
The Appellants also disclose that "[ c ]hanging the stoichiometric ratios of the
elements in the reaction mixture can affect the properties and relative amounts of
the polymeric [e.g., polysiloxanes, polycarbosilanes, and polysilanes (Spec. i-f 63)]
and non-polymeric [e.g., silicon oxide, silicon dioxide, and mixed-valence oxides
SiOx (Spec. i-f 63)] materials in the deposited hybrid layer." Spec. i-f 65 (emphasis
added). Thus, we find that the results reported in paragraph 120 of the Appellants'
Specification for TFT 3 are not representative of the full scope of field-effect
transistors covered by claim 1.
6